I never said anything about natural law
Thank you so much for your honesty, Darran, not to mention for your clear vision of truth.
I’m going to ask again that you remain civil. This seems extraordinarily personal to you, while for me, it’s just a friendly debate.
I’m beginning to wonder if you know what natural law is. Natural law is determined by nature, as opposed to positive law, which is determined by man. I would suggest reading Aristotle.
You may find this, a little of this, and some of that helpful.
Nate13 was very nice to you. He suggested you go away and study some Natural Law. He didn’t suggest that becuase you wrote about it, but because of the way you responded to my post about Natural Law.I never said anything about natural law
He’s stereotyping homosexuals are vile, evil, satanic people… And if you read my little profile it says I’m Catholic
I know all about the Church’s teachings on homosexuality…
The Church is also against all unjustified discrimination (read the Catechism which I doubt you have)
I’m not a relativist, if that’s what you mean. Feel free to prove me wrong on that point.
I know, right? And it sure is strange, too, given that all his opponents had already stated that consent crushed his argument about marrying a dog.
According to W. V. Quine (perhaps you’ve heard of him?) a ‘conditional’ is any statement of the form [if X then Y]. A reversed conditional, then, is the corresponding statement [if Y then X], and to confuse the two is a very common fallacy. Hence my conjecture that you yourself might be committing this classic logical error.
Yes, but then again, that’s a universal negative, isn’t it? Good luck proving that.
Well, if equivocation is kosher, then I suppose anyone should be capable of anything.
No doubt there are analogies between the two case. But even one genuine difference between the two is potentially morally relevant. Therefore, unless you want to go through every possible difference between the two cases and show that each one is not morally relevant, there is no way to claim that there can be no reason for accepting the one case while rejecting the other. No way, that is, unless there really are no differences, in which case you’ll find yourself confronted by the absurdity given in point 5 above.
Again, I’m not a relativist.
Wait guys, you’re blaming people for the wrong things. When John replied to me, his quotes got a little wonky. So when mro replied to John, the quotes got, well wonky-er.(Fact check)
And by the way, John does not believe that
I never thought that you misquoted or misinterpreted me on this thread. Not at all.
Except that the research has already been done, and here is what is known more conclusively now than ever before in human history:
The clear vision of truth is yours Elizabeth! God bless you.Thank you so much for your honesty, Darran, not to mention for your clear vision of truth.
Conor, the quote I boxed from mro was a response to John’s comments. (Click on the little blue box next to mro’s name within the quote to determine that.)
If what you write is piffle, I’ll call it piffle. How you react and respond is entirely up to you.
Well, you got one thing right, which is that there is a distinction between man made Positive law and Natural Law. Other than that, what you wrote is piffle.
And which of Aquinas’s works would you have me read? He wrote lots, you see.
Regarding the research you point out, I agree that more is known today than ever before about the biopsychosociocultural causes of gender differences. (As you know, the causes are not only brain-based hard-wiring, though that does exist.) However, research has also found that some of the gender differences, particularly with regard to cognitive processes, which have been maintained and perpetuated due to social stereotypes, have been shown to be false. Moreover, gender differences interact with chronological age, tending to dissipate in older heterosexual couples. This process is also thought to be multidetermined. Further, there is significant overlap in range between normal male and normal female cognition, affect, and behavior. And finally, studies on the homosexual brain (male and female) are as yet inconclusive with respect to its influence on thinking, feeling, and acting. Although there are some solid gender differences that cannot be denied, some of the research has already produced and is likely to yield in the future many surprises. The “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” beliefs, discussed by some pop psychologists, are far from the scientific consensus.I never thought that you misquoted or misinterpreted me on this thread. Not at all.
Except that the research has already been done, and here is what is known more conclusively now than ever before in human history:
**Men are hard-wired to behave, cognate, respond, act, initiate, avoid, and communicate in ways particular to their sex,
and women are hard-wired in the above areas in an entirely different way.**
The brain research is significant on this. Therefore (again), by definition two of the same sex limits the environment of the child. To find oneself in an accidental situation (such as a widowed father inviting his own widowed father, or single brother or uncle, to move in with him to provide support as an additional surrogate parent is one thing. But to deliberately design an exclusive environment is positively selfish. What many people neglect to understand is that there are not very many homosexual households which include lots of socializing with heterosexual couples; most such households socialize predominantly with others of their social circle. (Just as most heterosexuals do!) This promises a constricted environment for a child. Most homosexuals have actually grown up already with a female mother and a male father. (Yes, that was deliberately redundant.) Given that, it may not particularly occur to them that they are closing off opportunties which were previously made available to themselves, since they have assimilated already a broader interface with the world, prior to adulthood.
Focus on the underlined part. That’s what’s important because that will not change, no matter what social agenda anyone has to change it.
I’m shocked that you would think so little of my intellect
that you would even refer to such a superficial author as John Gray (despite how cute he is ). Instead, read Brain Sex or something even more sophisticated.I purposely refrained from mentioning the author’s name, to avoid any possibility of a lawsuit! But OK, I’ll split the legal fees with you. (You can’t believe I’m demeaning your intellect, Elizabeth, nor Gray’s for that matter. All these popular psychologists are shrewd business people.) I agree that social roles cannot eradicate sex differences; they simply take the edge off a bit. And there is good research to show that biological differences trump learning in several instances. My point, nonetheless, is that the research verdict is not in, even biologically speaking, with regard to gender differences. The thing about research and science, however, is that the verdict is NEVER in, and we have to live our lives in the meantime.Focus on the underlined part. That’s what’s important because that will not change, no matter what social agenda anyone has to change it.
I’m shocked that you would think so little of my intellect
Roles do not eradicate sex differences. And I don’t have much patience with anyone who might be interested in encouraging such an eradication.
Haha – against you or against him?
And even when it’s supposedly “all” “in,” it will not have proven that men can seriously cross over to women, and vice-versa. Yes, I know about transgenderism and the rare phenomenon of intersexed persons. But the general population is what we’re talking about here – not the exceptional outliers.
Well then since you didn’t have a father figure for all of your formative years, does that mean you are not a sound individual? And if not, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say?